origins of the SDA

[agent_grey]

The adventist religion has the same origins as all other false religions. The fallen mans love for Idolatry. The worship of ones own imagination. This is deeply rooted in the human love for ones own thoughts and beliefs. It explodes once one accepts the doctrine of scriptural innerancy. Literature worship is no different than any other form of Paganism.

The idol of the inventist is the pages of scripture itself(scripture as a false Christ). This then fleshes out to the worship of an imaginary God that created a non existant flat earth. From their it progressed to flat out angel worship.

The Angel they worship is the Arc Angel Micheal.

 

[iesunoheishi]

What’s up people!?

My name is Chris,
I do not consider myself a Seventh Day Adventist, but I was raised in the SDA church and still attend, as I do not find a church who’s doctrine is more closely in line with the scripture. That being said there are many things I do not adhere to within the SDA church, but I have a pretty thorough understanding and knowledge of the doctrines, beliefs, and dogmas. I’m SDA-ish. But I would be happy to serve as a proxy.

Benedict asks on what authority did the founders of the SDA start their movement?
A.- Well, although I often hear non-Adventists (I will use the terms SDA and Adventist interchangeably, as is my habit) say that the SDA church is founded on Ellen G. White, but I believe the official stance of the church is that it is most certainly not. Biblicaly speaking we (Both the SDA Church and myself in this instance) believe a church is a body of believers who come together in the name of Christ to learn and witness to each other and the world. Do you agree? The movement was started as you said, when many people in 1844 had been coming together and studying the scripture diligently and thought they had p(name removed by moderator)ointed the day in which Christ would return. Clearly they were wrong, but they continued to study and decided that although they had got that wrong, there was still a lot they could learn, that other mainstream protestant groups were not offering or on which they erred.

I have heard the claims of the masonic ties way back but the aim of the SDA church should be, as in any other church to follow the bible, and they try to do so to the utmost. As one who enjoys conspiracy theories, truth and digging into the scripture, I have not noticed any masonic ties although I understand by nature those things are meant to be kept hidden. I’ve also heard there are masonic symbols on the tomb which is in the shape of an obelisk.

Many SDAs do believe she was a prophetess and that her visions were inspired. But some do not-unfortunately for those who do not, it is among the Adventist doctrine and is something that i believe you testify to when being baptized into the faith. I have read almost none of her writings and so I will not call her a prophet. I will say that many of the quotes I have seen that claim she spoke heresies are taken out of context and used as proof that she was not a prophet and speaking against God.
I’ve seen one excerpt quoted a number of times all over the web that says “The man, Jesus Christ was not the Lord God Almighty” and people use that to say she thinks Jesus was not God, but I a long time ago I just googled it and found that people had simply misquoted her.
The full quote reads, “There is no one who can explain the mystery of the incarnation of Christ. Yet we know that He came to this earth and lived as a man among men. The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty, yet Christ and the Father are one.” You can see how out of context it sounds as if she is denying Christ’s divinity, but in context it sounds more like she is admiring the majesty and mystery of Christ’s being. I will say that if you have ever read her stuff, she surely has a way with words. For reasons like that, I will not take a stand until I have more fully read her works. I don’t feel like it would be fair to judge her based on a google search in either direction, for or against.

To po18guy
Yeah a lot of Adventists do say that the Archangel Michael is the Christ before his reincarnation as a human being. I’ve definitely heard that. I guess, I would answer that buy saying that it is something the church occasionally entertains but does not push, it is not doctrinal, I’ve never once heard Michael addressed in prayer in any SDA church, only God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I think it’s more dogmatic. As for why they entertain this idea… The SDA belief is that the archangel Michael was not a created being, but the chief of the messengers as archangel is transliterated. You may also note that in the KJV bible, no other entity is ever referred to as an archangel.
Also in Daniel 10:21 Michael is referred to as Daniel’s prince by an angel in his vision.

Personally, I have never addressed Michael in a prayer, and never plan to. If Christ Jesus is also called Michael then Michael would hear me if I called upon Jesus Christ, correct? So there is no need to let this thought bother me. I worship God alone.

As for whether or not SDAs and Catholics share the same Jesus I cannot answer you. We (again, both SDAs and I) worship God the creator, the God of the living, who is Chris Jesus, who manifests himself in our lives through his Holy Spirit.

I cannot claim to know the hearts of all SDAs, but the idea is to teach only the bible. The closest thing to abhorrent thinking you have already touched on with your Michael inquiry and your Ellen White Prophet questions.

Vera Diecre
That’s pretty nuts! I have no idea why they would say that the world was going to end in 3 years.
“Keep Watch, because you don’t know the day or the hour when the Son of man will come.”

Anyway, I see this post is a few months old and that there are some rather harsh feelings towards the SDA faith. I don’t mind trying to answer any questions as long as you come in peace and not to fight or simply puff yourself up. I feel that by fielding questions I am brought into the word and can more closely hone in on God’s truth. So if you’re still interested I’ll answer whatever on the SDA or anything. Just, let’s do it lovingly guys.

Cheers Everyone!

 

[po18guy]

My name is Chris,

Welcome to the forum, Chris! I pray that you are here in a search for the ultimate truth.

To po18guy Yeah a lot of Adventists do say that the Archangel Michael is the Christ before his reincarnation as a human being. I’ve definitely heard that. I guess, I would answer that buy saying that it is something the church occasionally entertains but does not push, it is not doctrinal, I’ve never once heard Michael addressed in prayer in any SDA church, only God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I think it’s more dogmatic. As for why they entertain this idea… The SDA belief is that the archangel Michael was not a created being, but the chief of the messengers as archangel is transliterated. You may also note that in the KJV bible, no other entity is ever referred to as an archangel.

It was long ago revealed that all angels are created beings, made clear in the Old Testament. John 1 reaffirms that God, the Word (Jesus), and His Spirit existed from the beginning. Thus, the assumption that Michael, or Jesus, for that matter, are, or have even been anything other than what their true substance is, appears to be the result of faulty interpretation of scripture. To refer to Jesus as an angel is at minimum a terrible insult, as it reduces Jesus to a creation. To apply Godliness to a creation (angel) becomes idol worship, since we cannot worship created things - not even angels, but God alone.

And, this tremendous variation in interpretation absolutely plagues non-Catholic/Orthodox Christianity. Differing opinions of revealed truth are brought about, not by authoritative interpretation of scripture, but by private interpretation. How else can thousands of denominations differ (sometimes substantially) while using the exact same bible? Clearly, something must be wrong with the very foundation of “bible” Christianity.

 

[pablope]

What’s up people!?

My name is Chris,
I do not consider myself a Seventh Day Adventist, but I was raised in the SDA church and still attend, as I do not find a church who’s doctrine is more closely in line with the scripture. That being said there are many things I do not adhere to within the SDA church, but I have a pretty thorough understanding and knowledge of the doctrines, beliefs, and dogmas. I’m SDA-ish. But I would be happy to serve as a proxy.

Benedict asks on what authority did the founders of the SDA start their movement?
A.- Well, although I often hear non-Adventists (I will use the terms SDA and Adventist interchangeably, as is my habit) say that the SDA church is founded on Ellen G. White, but I believe the official stance of the church is that it is most certainly not. Biblicaly speaking we (Both the SDA Church and myself in this instance) believe a church is a body of believers who come together in the name of Christ to learn and witness to each other and the world. Do you agree? The movement was started as you said, when many people in 1844 had been coming together and studying the scripture diligently and thought they had p(name removed by moderator)ointed the day in which Christ would return. Clearly they were wrong, but they continued to study and decided that although they had got that wrong, there was still a lot they could learn, that other mainstream protestant groups were not offering or on which they erred.

I have heard the claims of the masonic ties way back but the aim of the SDA church should be, as in any other church to follow the bible, and they try to do so to the utmost. As one who enjoys conspiracy theories, truth and digging into the scripture, I have not noticed any masonic ties although I understand by nature those things are meant to be kept hidden. I’ve also heard there are masonic symbols on the tomb which is in the shape of an obelisk.

Many SDAs do believe she was a prophetess and that her visions were inspired. But some do not-unfortunately for those who do not, it is among the Adventist doctrine and is something that i believe you testify to when being baptized into the faith. I have read almost none of her writings and so I will not call her a prophet. I will say that many of the quotes I have seen that claim she spoke heresies are taken out of context and used as proof that she was not a prophet and speaking against God.
I’ve seen one excerpt quoted a number of times all over the web that says “The man, Jesus Christ was not the Lord God Almighty” and people use that to say she thinks Jesus was not God, but I a long time ago I just googled it and found that people had simply misquoted her.
The full quote reads, “There is no one who can explain the mystery of the incarnation of Christ. Yet we know that He came to this earth and lived as a man among men. The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty, yet Christ and the Father are one.” You can see how out of context it sounds as if she is denying Christ’s divinity, but in context it sounds more like she is admiring the majesty and mystery of Christ’s being. I will say that if you have ever read her stuff, she surely has a way with words. For reasons like that, I will not take a stand until I have more fully read her works. I don’t feel like it would be fair to judge her based on a google search in either direction, for or against.

IVera Diecre
That’s pretty nuts! I have no idea why they would say that the world was going to end in 3 years.
“Keep Watch, because you don’t know the day or the hour when the Son of man will come.”

Anyway, I see this post is a few months old and that there are some rather harsh feelings towards the SDA faith. I don’t mind trying to answer any questions as long as you come in peace and not to fight or simply puff yourself up. I feel that by fielding questions I am brought into the word and can more closely hone in on God’s truth. So if you’re still interested I’ll answer whatever on the SDA or anything. Just, let’s do it lovingly guys.

Cheers Everyone!

Okay…for starters…Why not start with “soul sleep”…who originally came with this idea in the SDA…and explain it…and basis?

 

[iesunoheishi]

Welcome to the forum, Chris! I pray that you are here in a search for the ultimate truth.
It was long ago revealed that all angels are created beings, made clear in the Old Testament. John 1 reaffirms that God, the Word (Jesus), and His Spirit existed from the beginning. Thus, the assumption that Michael, or Jesus, for that matter, are, or have even been anything other than what their true substance is, appears to be the result of faulty interpretation of scripture. To refer to Jesus as an angel is at minimum a terrible insult, as it reduces Jesus to a creation. To apply Godliness to a creation (angel) becomes idol worship, since we cannot worship created things - not even angels, but God alone.

And, this tremendous variation in interpretation absolutely plagues non-Catholic/Orthodox Christianity. Differing opinions of revealed truth are brought about, not by authoritative interpretation of scripture, but by private interpretation. How else can thousands of denominations differ (sometimes substantially) while using the exact same bible? Clearly, something must be wrong with the very foundation of “bible” Christianity.

Of course I understand your argument po18guy. The whole interpretation isn’t something that bothers me personally. I try and accept and understand the nature of God as the bible provides and to wait for clarification from God on that which I do not. I also understand that I, and probably no human, will ever fully understand the wholeness of God’s splendor. I do not worship Michael (unless he is the Son of God) because I am unsure about the mater of the name and the nature of who the archangel is. I’m sure if I do not know Michael as the name of God and Christ Jesus, and refrain from using the name as such out of my desire to worship only the one true God, He will not be upset.
In my life 27 years attending SDA churches I have never heard Michael addressed in prayer, and I’ve only heard it brought up a handful of times.
Adventists do not believe Michael was an angel but rather was The Chief of Angels - i.e. not a created being i.e. He was Christ before Christ assumed human form and was given the name Jesus (Yehoshua/Yeshua- which means ‘God is Helper’) as instructed by the angel. The bible says “…Michael and his/His angels.”
Notice that whether you make an assumption that archangel means ‘ONLY The Chief of Angels’ or that archangel means ‘ONLY a type of Angel’ we have made an assumption based on an interpretation based on a translation from Latin, Hebrew, or Aramaic.

And as for coming here in search of truth. I actually came looking for questions, because in finding questions I am pressed to find answers in His Word. In this way I learn what others believe and what the Word says of itself. But I am not here looking for conflict, although if you ask me something, rest assured I will try and be thorough in a response. It is not to persuade (for it is the job of the Spirit of God to convict the hearts of men) but in order that I can effectively illustrate (in this case) the Seventh Day Adventist church believes what it does.

~Chris

 

[iesunoheishi]

Okay…for starters…Why not start with “soul sleep”…who originally came with this idea in the SDA…and explain it…and basis?

So… ‘Soul sleep’. This has the potential to get involved. But let me try and give you the short version. Of course Adventists don’t really refer to this idea as ‘soul sleep’ but as death.

I don’t know if I can answer in a way this will satisfy your question because I believe it is completely biblical, I think that it is something that the disciples knew to be true as well.
I can tell you that Ellen White agreed with the belief, but I don’t know if she was the first within the movement to understand it.

The idea of ‘soul sleep’ is that when we die, we have no existence. We do not go directly to heaven, nor directly to hell or anywhere else directly. Unless we are translated as Elijah or Enoch wherever they are. We believe that the body returns to the earth and the breath (or spirit) returns to God who gave it. We believe all will be resurrected when Christ returns at the second coming.
[BIBLEDRB]John 3:13 - No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man.[/BIBLEDRB]

You might need to understand our idea of Soul and Spirit in order to clarify.
Many people use the words Spirit and Soul interchangeably, Adventist belief is that they should not be used as such.

[BIBLEDRB]We believe that the bible states clearly in Genesis 2:7 That God created man
1- from the dust of the ground and
2-breathed into him the breath of life (Latin-spiritus/Hebrew-ruach=both meaning breath/wind)
3-and man became a living soul/creature[/BIBLEDRB]
As we read it, it is simple as is without adding anything or having to take anything away.
We accept that man is not immortal. [and I am not saying we cannot be saved by Christ, but we believe he will come again and we will be caught up with Him in the clouds. Until then we will rest in death or sleep as the Jesus often calls it.]

We are dust animated with His breath, and those two elements together make us a soul. Remove either dust or breath and what are you left with? Well if a soul is what is made up of both the spirit and the dirt you cannot be left unchanged-how can you be a soul?

From dust we came and to dust we will return.
[BIBLEDRB]Job 7:21, Ecclesiastes 9:5,6,10, Psalm 6:4,5, Ecclesiastes 12:7, Psalm 115:17, 1 Timothy 6:15,16, Isaiah 38:18, Ezekiel 18:4[/BIBLEDRB]

I’m sorry if the following sounds harsh, but it is something that I simply cannot understand, and something that saddens me because it looks like a black and white issue to me. I personally believe that most Christians still believe the first lie told by the serpent, and deny what God said.

God- “in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die.”
Serpent- “you will not surely die”

So that’s kind of a taste of the pool from which we draw our conclusions. If I have been unclear please let me know. Or if you’d like me to elaborate on anything.
This is what I believe, so I have no problems with you attacking my position. I believe it is well founded in the Word and will even debate if anyone wishes to. But I will not debate with those who do not wish to and I will keep my arguments grounded in the Bible.

Also I would love (name removed by moderator)ut on any of this and I would be especially interested in anywhere in the scripture which the Bible speaks of an immortal spirit (or soul) that will be given before Christ comes again. I love reading the bible and especially reading it and striving to know it better, because it’s like a guide for us, so we can know what His will is for us. May God bless you all!
( I’m starting winter quarter at uni tomorrow, so please be patient if I take time to respond. Cheers! )

~Chris

 

[po18guy]

Of course I understand your argument po18guy. The whole interpretation isn’t something that bothers me personally. I try and accept and understand the nature of God as the bible provides and to wait for clarification from God on that which I do not. I also understand that I, and probably no human, will ever fully understand the wholeness of God’s splendor. I do not worship Michael (unless he is the Son of God) because I am unsure about the mater of the name and the nature of who the archangel is. I’m sure if I do not know Michael as the name of God and Christ Jesus, and refrain from using the name as such out of my desire to worship only the one true God, He will not be upset.
In my life 27 years attending SDA churches I have never heard Michael addressed in prayer, and I’ve only heard it brought up a handful of times.
Adventists do not believe Michael was an angel but rather was The Chief of Angels - i.e. not a created being i.e. He was Christ before Christ assumed human form and was given the name Jesus (Yehoshua/Yeshua- which means ‘God is Helper’) as instructed by the angel. The bible says “…Michael and his/His angels.”
Notice that whether you make an assumption that archangel means ‘ONLY The Chief of Angels’ or that archangel means ‘ONLY a type of Angel’ we have made an assumption based on an interpretation based on a translation from Latin, Hebrew, or Aramaic.

And as for coming here in search of truth. I actually came looking for questions, because in finding questions I am pressed to find answers in His Word. In this way I learn what others believe and what the Word says of itself. But I am not here looking for conflict, although if you ask me something, rest assured I will try and be thorough in a response. It is not to persuade (for it is the job of the Spirit of God to convict the hearts of men) but in order that I can effectively illustrate (in this case) the Seventh Day Adventist church believes what it does.

~Chris

Chris, please consider that, prior to the 1800s in America, no one on earth had even thought that Michael was the Word before the Word became flesh. No one ever conflated Jesus and Michael. None of this is in the plain reading of scripture. There is nothing to indicate that any angel or chief of angels is eternal. Being an ‘adventist’ faith, the SDA uncomfortably shares some commonalities with both Mormonism and the teachings of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. All three, to a greater or lesser degree, change the very nature of God. All three suddenly popped up in 19th century America. This alone concerns me greatly.

 

[iesunoheishi]

Chris, please consider that, prior to the 1800s in America, no one on earth had even thought that Michael was the Word before the Word became flesh. No one ever conflated Jesus and Michael. None of this is in the plain reading of scripture. There is nothing to indicate that any angel or chief of angels is eternal. Being an ‘adventist’ faith, the SDA uncomfortably shares some commonalities with both Mormonism and the teachings of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. All three, to a greater or lesser degree, change the very nature of God. All three suddenly popped up in 19th century America. This alone concerns me greatly.

That last part does not concern me. Consider this. If Satan knew that some great truth would reappear in a certain year, would he not try to shut out that truth or try to make it appear null by raising up other false truths. A lot of stuff went down in 1844. Does that mean all must be wrong?

I understand your concern po18guy.
I realize you’re trying to reach out to me, which is brotherly and I am respect your compassion. May God bless you. Thank you for sharing your insights. However I get the feeling you are trying to convict me of something. That’s OK

I would like to repeat that this is not something I have come to a conclusion on either way based solely on scripture.

There is nothing to indicate that any angel or chief of angels is eternal.

What is there to indicate that the archangel Michael is an angel?

Can you point me to where these beliefs are grounded in scripture? I’d rather hear God’s word than simply accept your words on behalf of all those living before the 1800s whose belief, in and of itself, makes no difference to me. What is true is not necessarily popular and what is popular is not necessarily true.

Please realize that your passion, however furious, will not convict men of anything. While God’s words do have that power. So if you are trying to argue a point, perhaps His words in the Bible, if they support what you say, will help you effectively shed light on what you believe to be true.

Would you please elaborate on your understanding of ways that Adventists (specifically SDA) change the nature of God. I’ve never really heard from a level headed person what the SDA church looks like to others. I am genuinely interested. I’ve talked with Mormons before, and I will agree with you that they have some clearly flawed beliefs, but I prescribe to almost none of what they believe, and I know nothing about the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (that’s the Jehovah’s Witnesses, right??) I’ve spoken with a Jehovah’s Witness before but I’m not really interested in their beliefs either as they have admittedly changed the Bible (if they are indeed the Jehovah’s Witnesses). Also I have never read any of Ellen White’s books which is one reason I do not refer to myself as a Seventh Day Adventist. As seeing her as an inspired writer is one of the fundamental beliefs of the SDA church and I have never read her works, I cannot make that determination as of yet.

~Chris

 

[po18guy]

That last part does not concern me. Consider this. If Satan knew that some great truth would reappear in a certain year, would he not try to shut out that truth or try to make it appear null by raising up other false truths. A lot of stuff went down in 1844. Does that mean all must be wrong?

Satan always attacks the truth. He has succeeded in convincing some folks that the Catholic Church is the “whore of Babylon” and that the Pope is the anti-christ. However, there is nothing in prophecy to indicate that the Church fell into ruin and that it would only be restored 1,800 years later. Jesus states emphatically that this will never be the case.

I understand your concern po18guy.
I realize you’re trying to reach out to me, which is brotherly and I am respect your compassion. May God bless you. Thank you for sharing your insights. However I get the feeling you are trying to convict me of something. That’s OK

I ask you only to question a faith tradition that goes back to 1844 and stops dead. I do not doubt your faith, or your love of God. I doubt certain doctrines of the SDA, which no one one earth held until very recently in time.

What is there to indicate that the archangel Michael is an angel?

(KJV) Jude 1:9 “Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee”.

Note that this was written by Jude, the brother of James (and cousin of Jesus) about an event that occurred about 1,500 years before Christ. It is not in Old Testament scripture, but appears in the New. How can this be, since they were not written at the time they occurred? This points to a source outside of the bible - the Jewish oral tradition, or “paradosis” as it is known.

I’d rather hear God’s word than simply accept your words on behalf of all those living before the 1800s whose belief, in and of itself, makes no difference to me. What is true is not necessarily popular and what is popular is not necessarily true.

My words are not mine, but reflect what I have learned from the Church that Jesus Christ founded. Again, whatever you hear from God’s word must be authoritatively interpreted. A bible college degree gives one exactly zero authority to interpret scripture. Disagree? The bible itself tells you that it needs proper interpretation. See Nehemiah 8:8, Acts 8:30-34 and 2 Peter 3:16. So, who is to interpret for us?

Please realize that your passion, however furious, will not convict men of anything. While God’s words do have that power. So if you are trying to argue a point, perhaps His words in the Bible, if they support what you say, will help you effectively shed light on what you believe to be true.

Some small degree of passion I may have, but I can convict you of nothing - neither am I trying. Only the Holy Spirit can do that. We are not in a competition for members here, but rather on a lifelong quest for the Truth, which is Jesus Christ.

Would you please elaborate on your understanding of ways that Adventists (specifically SDA) change the nature of God. I’ve never really heard from a level headed person what the SDA church looks like to others. I am genuinely interested. I’ve talked with Mormons before, and I will agree with you that they have some clearly flawed beliefs, but I prescribe to almost none of what they believe, and I know nothing about the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (that’s the Jehovah’s Witnesses, right??) I’ve spoken with a Jehovah’s Witness before but I’m not really interested in their beliefs either as they have admittedly changed the Bible (if they are indeed the Jehovah’s Witnesses). Also I have never read any of Ellen White’s books which is one reason I do not refer to myself as a Seventh Day Adventist. As seeing her as an inspired writer is one of the fundamental beliefs of the SDA church and I have never read her works, I cannot make that determination as of yet.

Good on each point. As to the SDA beliefs, it is principally this equation of Jesus and Michael the archangel that is troubling. Angels are created beings. To that extent, the SDA have a radically different belief regarding Jesus than all other Christian denominations. Equating Jesus with an angel - any angel, is clearly a new line of thought that emerged, as mentioned, in America in the 1800s. Jesus is eternal, and all angels are created beings. Jesus was present at the creation of the angels.

A little history: Before I retired, my Chaplain at work was an SDA pastor. He and I had some very interesting discussions. We are true brothers in Christ and greet each other with a hug. However, we diverge on the concept of Church authority and on the bible as the sole rule of faith.

I pray that you came to these forums because you love Christ - love Him so much that you would even want to go and spend time in His presence.

 

[iesunoheishi]

Satan always attacks the truth. He has succeeded in convincing some folks that the Catholic Church is the “whore of Babylon” and that the Pope is the Antichrist. However, there is nothing in prophecy to indicate that the Church fell into ruin and that it would only be restored 1,800 years later. Jesus states emphatically that this will never be the case.

I do not see how

1. reference to your church as the Antichrist or whore of Babylon,
2. and the apostasy thing, which is more of a Mormon doctrine (I actually never heard of that until I talked with some Mormons.)
3. have anything in common. Sorry, I don’t follow the logic here.
   While I do find the teachings of the SDA church to be close to a very good understanding of the scripture, I concede that they are not perfect. But most if not all of the truths that I find in the SDA church are not new, nor are they unique. I don’t really hear SDAs talking about themselves as a restoration church, ever. They just try to follow the Bible.

(KJV) Jude 1:9 “Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee”.

Note that this was written by Jude, the brother of James (and cousin of Jesus) about an event that occurred about 1,500 years before Christ. It is not in Old Testament scripture, but appears in the New. How can this be, since they were not written at the time they occurred? This points to a source outside of the bible - the Jewish oral tradition, or “paradosis” as it is known.

Truthfully this is not something I want to argue for or against because I can see logic in either position, but… I don’t think this particular argument is strong enough to dissuade me of my agnostic position on the issue. Even Jesus did works in the name of God while with us in flesh.
Matthew 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me.
You seem familiar with the Bible, I’m sure you know that Jesus was fond of giving glory to God the Father for all the works that he did.

My words are not mine, but reflect what I have learned from the Church that Jesus Christ founded. Again, whatever you hear from God’s word must be authoritatively interpreted. A bible college degree gives one exactly zero authority to interpret scripture. Disagree? The bible itself tells you that it needs proper interpretation. See Nehemiah 8:8, Acts 8:30-34 and 2 Peter 3:16. So, who is to interpret for us?

Who told you that whatever you hear must be authoritatively interpreted? Do you mean to say that the eunuch’s desire to be guided by man is something necessary to interpretation of the scripture. None of the above verses speak of “authority to interpret scripture.” The later two point only to the wonder of coming into the knowledge of our savior Jesus Christ. I believe that God’s Spirit can guide our understanding and our study of the Bible. I do not believe we need a go-between other than Christ Jesus himself to have a relationship with God and an understanding of His word or His will. Of course I recognize that we can learn from others, and in that way perhaps learn more rapidly or even learn that which we would not have had opportunity to. But I do not believe the whole truth of scripture is tied up in any one man.

 

[iesunoheishi]

Good on each point. As to the SDA beliefs, it is principally this equation of Jesus and Michael the archangel that is troubling. Angels are created beings. To that extent, the SDA have a radically different belief regarding Jesus than all other Christian denominations. Equating Jesus with an angel - any angel, is clearly a new line of thought that emerged, as mentioned, in America in the 1800s. Jesus is eternal, and all angels are created beings. Jesus was present at the creation of the angels.

So are we looking at, as you say, “a radically different understanding of Jesus,” or a different transliteration of an ancient word for which we here and now use the word ‘archangel’?

The SDA church (or the portion of it that believes this) is not trying to call Jesus a created being. They are saying that Michael is the chief of angels (in their eyes-also not a created being). And that, as we know Christ existed before he was born into human flesh, that Michael was His identity prior to that. The word ‘Angel’, the SDA church agrees, refers to a messenger, and also agreed is that the winged messengers/mighty warriors that you think of when you think of an angel are indeed created beings. The heart of this issue is wholly tied to the interpretation of archangel. I understand in Catholic teaching there are multiple archangels, but in the KJV Bible there is only 1.

My interpretation of the summation of your argument is that; Michael = Angel.
SDA understanding of archangel is that; Michael = not Angel.

My personal belief here is an agnostic take. I know in the beginning the Word was, and was with God and was God. And I am simply unsure as to exactly what that means beyond He is, was and will be-which is beautiful. I am OK with my inability to fully understand God. Kind of like my cat’s inability to understand the TV-never understanding that animals were not trapped in there and home movies were not miniature clones of our family trapped inside that should be feared and run away from.

I think to once and for all silence this SDA doctrine, one must only show definitively that archangel is a created being and can be nothing else. Then how could there be doubt? I personally have not found evidence for this, and not for lack of searching.

I would like to say thanks for sharing brother. I do appreciate that at least there are those with us who care enough to know think that gaining a fuller picture of our God is a worthwhile effort. And those of us who are willing to take time and share with others for God’s glory. I pray that God bless you in your search for truth as well. Talk to you soon.

~Chris

 

[agent_grey]

Is there a single more dispicable religion?

Was Paul truthfull when he said that them that teach abstenance from meat as a point of doctrine had a spirit contrary to the Holy Spirit?

 

[benidict]

hi guys. sorry for my absence. i had no internet for a few days… it looks like things are really going well. i find it interesting, that a former Adventist, is the only one here. and he is doing a much better job of explaining their beliefs, than some of the usual suspects. thank you Chris. very articulate, and much more pleasant post to read. not that i agree with you. i dont. i think that we were warned in the bible, that in the last days, people would not abide sound doctrine, but have itching of the ears. so i dont think any “new” truths would appear, but more likely, in line with the warning. new false teaching would appear. someone already stated, that none of the Adventist unique beliefs were around before the 1800s. ive raise this challenge before, and i shall do so again. i would like 1, just 1, theologian, doctrinal expositor, Church Father. any one, who deduced these unique doctrines, or thought the apostles taught them. prior to the 1800s. these doctrines are, the scapegoat teaching. soul sleep, people only suffering temporarily in hell, and being annihilated for lack of a better term. michael the archangel. the sabbath teaching, which by the way, i believe is still in effect, but for Gods Chosen people the Jews, until He lifts the veil from their eyes, and they recognize their messiah. thank you for the time you are giving us. Peace oh and happy new year all!

 

[po18guy]

While I do find the teachings of the SDA church to be close to a very good understanding of the scripture, I concede that they are not perfect. But most if not all of the truths that I find in the SDA church are not new, nor are they unique. I don’t really hear SDAs talking about themselves as a restoration church, ever. They just try to follow the Bible.

The same can be (and is) said by adherents of each of the 30,000 denominations - which disagree with the others on the meaning of scripture! Can scripture really mean 30,000 different things? If scripture is God’s truth, can it even mean two different things?

Truthfully this is not something I want to argue for or against because I can see logic in either position, but… I don’t think this particular argument is strong enough to dissuade me of my agnostic position on the issue.

The point here is that no one in the entire history of Christianity ever believed that Jesus was Michael, or ever confused the two. This all results from a private interpretation of scripture - even from one word privately interpreted.

Who told you that whatever you hear must be authoritatively interpreted?

Why doe your computer come with a tech support line? Isn’t that info clearly written in your user’s guide? You see, the text isn’t always clear, so you call a person with the authority to explain it to you. Oh, you could call your neighbor, and he might be correct, but why take the chance? You go to the authoritative experts. And, salvation is eternally important - much more so than learning to run a program.

As to who tells me that text, biblical or otherwise, needs interpretation: First, Jesus. Then, the bible itself. Then, common sense. In my career, I often had to testify in court, offering explanation of documents that I had written. Weren’t the documents themselves sufficient? I, being the author of them, had the sole authority to explain them.

Back to the bible verses: What do they mean to you? That you or I are qualified by the simple power of our literacy? The devil is literate! He quoted scripture to Jesus. Was he correct? Are you suggesting that just anyone’s interpretation will arrive at the truth? Today, it seems like some people believe that the bible contains the Holy Spirit for guidance. The devil surely planted this thought.

Jesus promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, to remind them of everything He had taught them. He did not promise it to just anyone with a bible (that did not yet exist, anyway).

Do you mean to say that the eunuch’s desire to be guided by man is something necessary to interpretation of the scripture.

Exactly the opposite. Man must have the authority to interpret that scripture. Most ‘bible alone’ people teach that scripture interprets itself. Well, it certainly didn’t to the eunuch! He asked for help and who did the Holy Spirit send? Not a passerby, but Philip, who had the authority to interpret that same scripture. The Apostles passed that authority on, through the power Jesus gave them to “bind and loose”. But, they did not give it to just anyone - it had to be men of good standing (see the book of Acts - numerous) who were ordained by the laying on of hands, as established by the Apostles.

None of the above verses speak of “authority to interpret scripture.”

So, no authority is needed? Please explain why you are not Methodist, as they interpret scripture, too. Ot Presbyterian. Or Lutheran. Or Baptist. Or Evangelical. Or Mennonite. Or Assembly of God. Or, 29,993 others. You see, when you allow the individual (read: the ego) to interpret scripture, you throw the door wide open to heresy and the leading of a passing spirit.

I believe that God’s Spirit can guide our understanding and our study of the Bible.

Yes! But, how do you know it is the Holy Spirit? Dangerous to assume here. Did the Holy Spirit guide Joseph Smith? Jim Jones? David Koresh?

The first thing to know about the Holy Spirit is that He always produces unity. If the spirit that is guiding you leads you to division from your brothers, it is assuredly not the Holy spirit. The evil one emulates the Holy Spirit on a daily basis, but he cannot produce good fruit. Thus we have the Body of Christ shattered into disagreeing denominations. Any good General advises that one should know your enemy.

I do not believe we need a go-between other than Christ Jesus himself to have a relationship with God and an understanding of His word or His will.

Think about what you are saying here: Jesus Himself sent go-betweens forth to teach and make disciples. He gave those go-betweens power to heal, raise the dead, cast our demons and interpret scripture. What Jesus did not do was to send forth a bible and make salvation a do-it-yourself project. He sent forth empowered experts.

Of course I recognize that we can learn from others, and in that way perhaps learn more rapidly or even learn that which we would not have had opportunity to. But I do not believe the whole truth of scripture is tied up in any one man.

The Truth, first and foremost, is Jesus Christ. Jesus founded a Church, not a bible. Jesus gave those Apostles unheard of power, both on earth and in heaven. They passed that power on to worthy men of their choosing, guided by the Holy Spirit, which Jesus directly promised them.

Bottom line: The Church produced the bible. The bible does not produce a church. All “bible-based” churches suffer from some degree of misleading, which is private (ego driven) interpretation of scripture, which the Apostle Peter condemns in 2 Peter 1:20.

The Holy Spirit unites.
The demon divides.

 

[iesunoheishi]

Is there a single more despicable religion?

Was Paul truthful when he said that them that teach abstinence from meat as a point of doctrine had a spirit contrary to the Holy Spirit?

Just to clarify, do you speak of the Seventh Day Adventist religion? What makes you feel so strongly against it, or it’s beliefs or what not? Where does your distaste stem from?

And were you referring to 1 Timothy 4:3?
1 Timothy 4: 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

If not, to which verse to you refer?

The SDA church does not command abstinence from meat, nor does it forbid any of it’s members to marry. While vegetarian living is encouraged, it is in no way commanded, and I’ve never heard of anyone in the congregation being told they should not marry. The majority of those I know who profess to be Seventh Day Adventists eat meat and plan to marry if they are not already. Hope that clarifies that.

 

[iesunoheishi]

i think that we were warned in the bible, that in the last days, people would not abide sound doctrine,

Must be me, right?

but have itching of the ears. so i dont think any “new” truths would appear, but more likely, in line with the warning. new false teaching would appear. someone already stated, that none of the Adventist unique beliefs were around before the 1800s. ive raise this challenge before, and i shall do so again. i would like 1, just 1…

Just getting things together here.

1 theologian, doctrinal expositor, Church Father. any one, who deduced these unique doctrines, or thought the apostles taught them. prior to the 1800s.
these doctrines are,
A~the scapegoat teaching.
B~ soul sleep,
C~people only suffering temporarily in hell, and being annihilated for lack of a better term.
D~michael the archangel.
E~the sabbath teaching, which by the way, i believe is still in effect, but for Gods Chosen people the Jews, until He lifts the veil from their eyes, and they recognize their messiah.
thank you for the time you are giving us. Peace oh and happy new year all!

In my expert opinion I cannot justify believing something solely on the basis that it has been around for a long time. Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism have all been around longer than Catholicism - yet you do not prescribe to those. Gnostics where around during the days of the apostles. What then? I see no need to provide a geneology of believers if a belief is clearly laid out in God’s Word. The Words of God are not a mystery but are given so that man may come to a knowledge of our messiah. I would not know where to even begin in the search for the history of a belief. If your wish is to believe what is popular or approved by other men rather than what is true, go your way, truth offers no popularity.

A - I’ve never heard the scapegoat teaching. Sorry. I can’t help you there. I’d just have to Google it, and I’m sure you could do that. So on this issue I won’t waste your time.

B - I don’t really understand why people say soul sleep is not biblical. I would think the immortal soul should be much harder to swallow in the face of the Bible. “Thou shalt surely die” (Of course you know who said that.)
How do you reconcile 1 Kings 2:10 David slept with his fathers;
1 Kings 11:43 Solomon slept with his fathers;
1 Kings 14:20 (Jeroboam) slept…;
also in Kings Rehoboham slept, Abijam slept, Asa slept, Omri, Ahab, Jehosophat, Joash, Jehoahaz, etc.
Indeed it seems one must throw out large portions of plain text in order to believe that the soul of man is immortal.
Why would (eternal life) the gift of Christs death (John 3:16) be given to those who deny Him - whom He said He would deny before the Father.

**
Job 14: 10 But man dieth, and wasteth away: yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he? 11As the waters fail from the sea, and the flood decayeth and drieth up:12 So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.13 O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me!14 If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come. **
Maybe Job had it wrong…

But will you have me believe Christ did not understand the simplicity of death after life rather than life after life?
**John11:11These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.12 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. 13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. 14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead. 15 And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him. 16 Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto his fellow disciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him. 17 Then when Jesus came, he found that he had lain in the grave four days already. 18 Now Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off: 19 And many of the Jews came to Martha and Mary, to comfort them concerning their brother. 20 Then Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met him: but Mary sat still in the house. 21Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. 22 But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee. 23 Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. 24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? **

D - see ongoing conversation with po18guy

E - Why would the Sabbath teaching be in effect for the Jewish nation but not for us?
**Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. **
Here is a copy of a letter from The Clifton Tracts, Vol. 4, published by the Roman Catholic Church. You might find it interesting if nothing more.

Talk to you guys soon.

~Chris

 

[benidict]

Must be me, right?

Just getting things together here.

In my expert opinion I cannot justify believing something solely on the basis that it has been around for a long time. Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism have all been around longer than Catholicism - yet you do not prescribe to those. Gnostics where around during the days of the apostles. What then? I see no need to provide a geneology of believers if a belief is clearly laid out in God’s Word. The Words of God are not a mystery but are given so that man may come to a knowledge of our messiah. I would not know where to even begin in the search for the history of a belief. If your wish is to believe what is popular or approved by other men rather than what is true, go your way, truth offers no popularity.

A - I’ve never heard the scapegoat teaching. Sorry. I can’t help you there. I’d just have to Google it, and I’m sure you could do that. So on this issue I won’t waste your time.

B - I don’t really understand why people say soul sleep is not biblical. I would think the immortal soul should be much harder to swallow in the face of the Bible. “Thou shalt surely die” (Of course you know who said that.)
How do you reconcile 1 Kings 2:10 David slept with his fathers;
1 Kings 11:43 Solomon slept with his fathers;
1 Kings 14:20 (Jeroboam) slept…;
also in Kings Rehoboham slept, Abijam slept, Asa slept, Omri, Ahab, Jehosophat, Joash, Jehoahaz, etc.
Indeed it seems one must throw out large portions of plain text in order to believe that the soul of man is immortal.
Why would (eternal life) the gift of Christs death (John 3:16) be given to those who deny Him - whom He said He would deny before the Father.

**
Job 14: 10 But man dieth, and wasteth away: yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he? 11As the waters fail from the sea, and the flood decayeth and drieth up:12 So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.13 O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me!14 If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come. **
Maybe Job had it wrong…

But will you have me believe Christ did not understand the simplicity of death after life rather than life after life?
**John11:11These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.12 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. 13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. 14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead. 15 And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him. 16 Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto his fellow disciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him. 17 Then when Jesus came, he found that he had lain in the grave four days already. 18 Now Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off: 19 And many of the Jews came to Martha and Mary, to comfort them concerning their brother. 20 Then Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met him: but Mary sat still in the house. 21Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. 22 But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee. 23 Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. 24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? **

D - see ongoing conversation with po18guy

E - Why would the Sabbath teaching be in effect for the Jewish nation but not for us?
**Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. **
Here is a copy of a letter from The Clifton Tracts, Vol. 4, published by the Roman Catholic Church. You might find it interesting if nothing more.

Talk to you guys soon.

~Chris

ok thank you. so you cannot point out anyone who believed these teachings prior to the 1800s. and no, i do not believe you are a false prophet. just the Adventist founder, Ellen G. White, and her cronies. i am however surprised you do not know about the scapegoat teaching, being a former SDA. thats a little confusing. as far as soul sleep, you can look through other threads and find my rebuttle. the Adventist do the same thing the fundamentalist do. they cherry pick their verses, and ignore, bypass, or explain away passages that combined with the cherry picked passages, give a different picture. thats a major problem i have with many of our seperated bretheren. they do not take the bible as a whole. just what suits their ends. and no, i do not consider Adventist seperated bretheren. before i came to CAF i did. but as i have learned more, i have come to the conclusion they are a very deceptive organiztion. especially when it comes to Jesus. if they think that Jesus and the Archangel Michael are the same being, then they do in fact worship a different Jesus, than the one found in the Gospels. i thank you for your time. Peace to you and yours.

 

[SempirVeritas]

hi yall. what are the origins of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, and by what authority did the founders of SDA, start their movement? was it a work of God, or was it of man? did Ellen G. White indeed have the spirit of prophecy? if so, then she really would be speaking for God, and we would be in error, not to follow her teachings. Adventist, feel free to convince me. i will gladly convert, if you can prove that E.G. White was truly, a prophetess. Peace

the ellen G white, and the “denomination” have been answered

However, "where did the move to keep the seventh day occur

short answer- its been around and practices for longer than catholicism has!

sabbathtruth.com/sabbath-history/sabbath-through-the-centuries.aspx

now im not saying right or wrong, but sabbath keeping is very ancient- for the christian alike!

 

[benidict]

the ellen G white, and the “denomination” have been answered

However, "where did the move to keep the seventh day occur

short answer- its been around and practices for longer than catholicism has!

sabbathtruth.com/sabbath-history/sabbath-through-the-centuries.aspx

now im not saying right or wrong, but sabbath keeping is very ancient- for the christian alike!

actually, the apostles and their earliest followers were meeting daily. breaking bread, encouraging one another, and praying. circumcision also was being practiced, but was not mandated after Peter with the authority, Christ had given him, discontinued the practice as a requirement for becoming a follower of Christ. not to mention it goes on to say, the gentiles were not required to follow the mosaic law, that Peter and the other apostles themselves declared should not be laid on the gentiles. they stated they themselves could not keep it fully. we were given the law of Love by Christ himself. that is what we are to follow. also, do the Adventist, meet daily as the Apostles did? the Catholic Church still does. and they were holding sunday in special reguard even before the death of the last Apostle. if circumcision could be changed, they certainly could change the day that was to be held in higher esteem. Peace

 

[iesunoheishi]

actually, the apostles and their earliest followers were meeting daily. breaking bread, encouraging one another, and praying. circumcision also was being practiced, but was not mandated after Peter with the authority, Christ had given him, discontinued the practice as a requirement for becoming a follower of Christ. not to mention it goes on to say, the gentiles were not required to follow the mosaic law, that Peter and the other apostles themselves declared should not be laid on the gentiles. they stated they themselves could not keep it fully. we were given the law of Love by Christ himself. that is what we are to follow. also, do the Adventist, meet daily as the Apostles did? the Catholic Church still does. and they were holding sunday in special reguard even before the death of the last Apostle. if circumcision could be changed, they certainly could change the day that was to be held in higher esteem. Peace

So since the 12 apostles did more than the minimum we should strive to do less?

Christ came to fulfill the law. And while we are not saved by the law, the law shows us our sin. If in looking to the law to find our own sin in order that we know what it is that separates us from God and we find ourselves with a growing distaste for the sin in our lives and therefore try to sin less - as it is sin that pulls us away from God; why would you instruct your brothers to ignore the law?
If there is no law, then there is no transgression of the law and therefor no sin. If there is no law and no sin, there is no need for a savior. Am I saying anything untrue?
There is one law of the ten written by the hand of God that begins with the word remember, and that is the one most men chose to ignore.
**
Matthew 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.**
Keeping the law does not in anyway guarantee salvation. And we can see that even them that break and teach others to break Gods laws will be in heaven, but clearly it is not pleasing to God that we should break His laws, or why would they be called least? But salvation gives us a desire to follow God’s law so we can decrease and He can increase in us. A desire to follow God’s laws springs from a closer walk with our creator and the knowledge that we are accepted in our pitiful and fallen state. It is a desire to be like our creator and savior.